Quote from: camazotz;384747Also, a correction: rust monsters do not spit recycled equipment outta their ass, though you can cut them open and recover refined residdum from destroyed magical devices. A minor distinction, but a lack of accuracy when mocking something leave me suspect at the veracity of the rest of your post.

Sure, just leave out all the other possibilities why I might have compressed my statement about how rust monsters functioned. We've been through the 4e rust monster discussion at greater length before; if you recall, the point there being made how it's a direct translation of how the RPGA handled sundered PC weapons in 3.x times. It's a single session resolution artificiality, facilitating your PCs transfer from one game group to another, which is mandatory in a set up like the RPGAs. (Not that 4E still allows for PC weapons being sundered or picked up by monsters anyway.)

I also fail to see how healing surges and daily powers are designed towards a play style that transcends a single session, so could you care to elaborate that point?

Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384760I've never told anyone this, but I'm an oxygen addict.

Pathetic, I know, but I just can't live without it.

WARNING: Withdrawal effects include asphyxia and death.

Quote from: Peregrin;384759I apologize for not keeping my posts more focused, but I still don't agree with the premise that you can judge someone's character based on their pastimes.  I think there are just too many variables at work when it comes to making up a person's psyche.

Well, if it were so, that is, if there were just too many variables to make up a person's psyche, then you wouldn't ever be able to get a grasp of one's personality though, would you?

I don't think it's the case. I think one may get a grasp on a person's personality traits, and overall psyche, following a set of clues in how the person behaves, the clothes' she's wearing, the music she likes, and so on, so forth. Tastes may inform a judgment here. The real problem is that context always matters in formulating such judgments, with just one set of tastes (for instance: "I like 4e!") being anecdotic at best, as far as evidence is concerned.

It's just not enough evidence to form a judgment, particularly when you don't know what, exactly, the person likes about 4e. Could be anything from liking to play D&D Experience or Delves to liking this or that rule or whatever. Could even be a reason that actually has nothing to do with the game itself, like a desire to be relevant to the gaming community at large. So... just saying "I like 4e!" isn't enough evidence for me to pass judgment on a particular individual, one way or another.

So the requirement we're working with here is that:

a) A person has more than a passing interest in the object of attention and
b) That we understand the reasons they like said object and why they devote a significant portion of their time, income, whatever to it

Someone who is obsessed with a pop-star vs. someone who happens to have their music on their media player?

That I can see, but the way Sett said it made it sound like he was painting much broader strokes.

Quote from: Peregrin;384766So the requirement we're working with here is that:

a) A person has more than a passing interest in the object of attention and
b) That we understand the reasons they like said object and why they devote a significant portion of their time, income, whatever to it

Someone who is obsessed with a pop-star vs. someone who happens to have their music on their media player?

Could be that yes, though sometimes, the seemingly most innocuous clues might inform greatly in this regard. I think that each particular reason has to be examined in regards to a particular personality lense, so to speak, with each window informing a better understanding of the overall shape and features of the house you're standing in, so to speak. It's a question of perspective and relationship between all these elements (emotions, ethics, tastes, w/e), with each new piece of the puzzle modifying your assessment as you go, IME.

Quote from: Peregrin;384766That I can see, but the way Sett said it made it sound like he was painting much broader strokes.

From where I'm standing too: Sett was painting in WAY too broad strokes. I'm guessing he intended to provoke a reaction rather than really engage in an exchange that, as we now know, he didn't think would be fruitful in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;384767From where I'm standing too: Sett was painting in WAY too broad strokes. I'm guessing he intended to provoke a reaction rather than really engage in an exchange that, as we now know, he didn't think would be fruitful in the first place.

Unless you fully agree with every premise and consequent conclusion he presents, an exchange with Sett will never be particularly fruitful.

Quote from: StormBringer;384770Unless you fully agree with every premise and consequent conclusion he presents, an exchange with Sett will never be particularly fruitful.

As far as conversations with Sett are concerned, I disagree. Once you get beyond the blunt form of his posts, Sett actually often has something interesting to say about all sorts of topics. I don't exactly know where the blunt, affirmative force comes from. I suspect it's in part due to his Prussian heritage, though being French myself, I'm obviously biased about this.

Now, if you engage in a conversation with anyone, anywhere, without agreeing first on its premise, the conversation won't go anywhere now, will it?

Quote from: Benoist;384771As far as conversations with Sett are concerned, I disagree. Once you get beyond the blunt form of his posts, Sett actually often has something interesting to say about all sorts of topics. I don't exactly know where the blunt, affirmative force comes from. I suspect it's in part due to his Prussian heritage, though being French myself, I'm obviously biased about this.

Now, if you engage in a conversation with anyone, anywhere, without agreeing first on its premise, the conversation won't go anywhere now, will it?

Nah, part of any good conversation is the discussion of the premise.  If the premise is incorrect, then the conversation won't go anywhere.  Ex falso quodlibet.

Quote from: StormBringer;384781If the premise is incorrect, then the conversation won't go anywhere.

It depends on how you define "anywhere." Assuming there's only one true ideology, religion, etc., many important and interesting conversations aren't based on true premises.

Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384783It depends on how you define "anywhere." Assuming there's only one true ideology, religion, etc., many important and interesting conversations aren't based on true premises.

That is impossible, actually.  Interesting, perhaps.  Important?  Not possible.  And a correct premise doesn't depend on 'one true' anything.

Admittedly, if the parties to a conversation agree on a premise, that can lead to some interesting discussion.  Generally, only in a design context, however.  Once everyone agrees to discuss a false or incorrect premise, you are well in the territory of 'what if?' or make believe.  We can agree to start with a premise that the sky isn't blue, or that elves exist, but clearly we won't be drawing any generally useful conclusions from that.  Certainly some interesting conclusions can be drawn for a campaign or game's design, but we aren't discussing that here.

Quote from: StormBringer;384791That is impossible, actually.

No, it's perfectly possible. Plenty of historically and culturally important discourses have been premised on horse shit. You don't even have to limit it to wishy-washy fields like politics and religion. Plenty of scientific progress has occurred on the basis of faulty theoretical assumptions that were eventually refined or overturned completely.

QuoteAnd a correct premise doesn't depend on 'one true' anything.

At the very least, it depends on a true premise unless you want to alter the commonly understood definition of "correct." My point, however, was that if you believe, at some point, two conversations with mutually exclusive premises have "gone somewhere," your statement was incorrect.

Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;384802No, it's perfectly possible. Plenty of historically and culturally important discourses have been premised on horse shit. You don't even have to limit it to wishy-washy fields like politics and religion. Plenty of scientific progress has occurred on the basis of faulty theoretical assumptions that were eventually refined or overturned completely.

Try again.  That is almost the entire point of 'science'.  We aren't doing science here.  Faulty premise = faulty conclusion = not meaningful, except for game design or world building.